Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Anderson v Canwest Radioworks Ltd
3 Nov 2006, Y Oldfield, AA 338/06, (2 pages)
APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS - Whether employee or independent contractor - ACC sought to recover levies from applicant on basis he was self employed - Applicant disputed was self employed and sought declaration was employee - Respondent had supported applicant's application for work permit - Work permits required for employment, not if setting up business - Written agreement described applicant as independent contractor - Terms of agreement consistent with employment relationship - Applicant fully integrated into respondent's organisation - Respondent of view applicant employed pursuant to contract of service and wrote letter to ACC stating applicant employee - Notwithstanding label, real nature of relationship one of employment - Applicant not to bear tax responsibilities of self employed person in relation to work performed for respondent
Result: Declaration accordingly ; No order for costs
McGrath v Labour Inspector (J Henning)
29 Aug 2006, J Crichton, CA 132/06, (3 pages)
DISPUTE - Objection by applicant to demand notice issued by Labour Inspector - No appearance by applicant - Authority dealt with objections raised by applicant - Nothing turned on absence of reference number on notice - Applicant's failure to attend meant Authority unable to consider contention employee received all monies owing - No evidence regarding allegation employee did not work appropriately - Even if evidence available, argument would need to be advanced to point failure to work impacted on basis for remuneration - Respondent's obligation as employer existed whether or not employee subject of job subsidy - Revised calculation in demand notice reflected monies owing - Applicant directed to pay revised sum - COSTS - Costs to lie where they fall
Result: Application dismissed ; Orders accordingly ; Costs to lie where they fall
Ross v Compass Group New Zealand Ltd
28 Nov 2006, M Urlich, AA 361/06, (3 pages)
DISPUTE - Whether applicant's bonus payment should have been included in calculation of holiday pay entitlements - Applicant relied on memorandum stating bonus not discretionary and holiday pay entitlement would include bonus - Applicant subsequently entered new employment agreement - Could not rely on earlier memorandum as terms of bonus scheme discretionary and stood outside employment agreement, and because distinction between "incentive" and "discretionary" in memorandum expressly overridden by language in new employment agreement - Bonus scheme discretionary - Holidays Act 2003 excluded discretionary payments from definition of gross earnings and ordinary weekly pay - Applicant sought to rely on earlier determination of Authority which found bonus part of gross earnings for purposes of holiday pay - Factual context of Philips v Hauraki Marine Ltd (cited below) distinguishable from present situation - Costs reserved and Authority recorded that significant issue in any consideration of costs would be respondent's reluctance to attend mediation
Result: Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved
Watson & Ors v The Rail and Maritime Transport Union & Anor
3 Nov 2006, R Arthur, CA 152/06, (7 pages)
DISPUTE - Whether respondent could use change of hours clause of collective employment agreement ("CEA") to change work arrangements of first applicants ("applicants") - Applicants worked as shunters at Lyttleton site - Respondent proposed new roster requiring applicants to work primarily from different site - Applicants claimed would increase safety hazards and breached prior assurances their "identity as Lyttleton shunters" would be preserved - Sought declaration "identity" assurance was term of employment that should not be changed without express agreement - Respondent contended change of hours clause and operations manual entitled it to require applicants to work under new roster and earlier arrangements did not preclude changes - Authority did not accept prior compromise between parties, with assurance of "identity", constituted new individual term for applicants - Respondent could not reasonably be taken to have waived rights to make changes provided for in CEA at any time in future - Real issue not whether job had particular "identity" but extent and basis on which CEA allowed changes to hours and location of work - Change sought by respondent more than change of hours - Rather, change in working environment and requirements of position which were part of conditions of employment - CEA and operating manual to be construed strictly - Clause relied upon by respondent did not provide for changes of work location or type - Applicants could not be required by terms of change of hours clause to work under proposed roster - In light of conclusion Authority need not consider other arguments - Applicants sought compensation for distress caused by respondent's actions - Matter a "dispute of rights" and remedy limited to declaration on application of CEA - Shunters
Result: Declaration accordingly ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
